YAPYUCO V SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. Nos. 120744-46 | JUNE 25, 2012 | Peralta, J.

Justifying Circumstances; Fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office

DOCTRINE: . The availability of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right
or office under Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code rests on proof that (a) the accused acted in the
performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of his right or office, and (b) the injury caused or the offense
committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office. The justification is based on the complete absence of intent and negligence on the part
of the accused, inasmuch as guilt of a felony connotes that it was committed with criminal intent or with
fault or negligence.

FACTS:

 One night, the accused got a call from an informant alerting them of some armed men who were
suspected of being members of the New People’s Army.
 In response of the information, the accused proceeded to the area, with the view in mind to
apprehend the suspects.
 Upon the informant relayed by the informant, the accused, members of the PNP, tried to flag down
a Toyota Tamarraw motor vehicle said to be carrying the suspected members of the NPA.
 Pursuant to the standard operating police procedure, the accused claimed that they tried to flag
down the vehicle but instead of pulling over, the vehicle tried to speed away.
 In order to immobilize the vehicle, the accused claimed that they shot the tires of the vehicle.
 As a result, one died, one suffered fatal injury and many suffered from attempted murder. Murder,
frustrated and attempted murder were filed against the police officers who participated in the
operation.
 During the trial, the accused invoke mistake of fact as a defense claiming that they honestly believed
that the passengers onboard the motor vehicle were armed and dangerous and the suspected
members of the NPA.
 They tried to justify that their act of firing bullets at the vehicle was because it tried to speed away
and that there only purpose in shooting was just to immobilize the vehicle.

ISSUE: Whether the accused had acted in the regular and lawful performance of their duties in the
maintenance of peace and order either as barangay officials and as members of the police and the CHDF,
and hence, could take shelter in the justifying circumstance provided in Article 11 (5) of the RPC

HELD: The availability of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or
office under Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code rests on proof that (a) the accused acted in the
performance of his duty or in the lawful exercise of his right or office, and (b) the injury caused or the offense
committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office. The justification is based on the complete absence of intent and negligence on the part
of the accused, inasmuch as guilt of a felony connotes that it was committed with criminal intent or with
fault or negligence. Where invoked, this ground for non-liability amounts to an acknowledgment that the
accused has caused the injury or has committed the offense charged for which, however, he may not be
penalized because the resulting injury or offense is a necessary consequence of the due performance of
his duty or the lawful exercise of his right or office. Thus, it must be shown that the acts of the accused
relative to the crime charged were indeed lawfully or duly performed; the burden necessarily shifts on him
to prove such hypothesis.

The requisites for justification under Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code do not obtain in this case.

The undisputed presence of all the accused at the situs of the incident is a legitimate law enforcement
operation. No objection is strong enough to defeat the claim that all of them – who were either police and
barangay officers or CHDF members tasked with the maintenance of peace and order – were bound to, as
they did, respond to information of a suspected rebel infiltration in the locality. While, it may certainly be
argued that rebellion is a continuing offense, it is interesting that nothing in the evidence suggests that the
accused were acting under an official order to open fire at or kill the suspects under any and all
circumstances. Even more telling is the absence of reference to the victims having launched such
aggression as would threaten the safety of any one of the accused, or having exhibited such defiance of
authority that would have instigated the accused, particularly those armed, to embark on a violent attack
with their firearms in self-defense.

But whether or not the passengers of the subject jeepney were NPA members and whether or not they
were at the time armed, are immaterial in the present inquiry inasmuch as they do not stand as accused in
the prosecution at hand. Besides, even assuming that they were as the accused believed them to be, the
actuations of these responding law enforcers must inevitably be ranged against reasonable expectations
that arise in the legitimate course of performance of policing duties. The rules of engagement, of which
every law enforcer must be thoroughly knowledgeable and for which he must always exercise the highest
caution, do not require that he should immediately draw or fire his weapon if the person to be accosted
does not heed his call. Pursuit without danger should be his next move, and not vengeance for personal
feelings or a damaged pride. Police work requires nothing more than the lawful apprehension of suspects,
since the completion of the process pertains to other government officers or agencies.

The records disclose no ill motives attributed to petitioners by the prosecution. It is interesting that, in
negating the allegation that they had by their acts intended to kill the occupants of the jeepney, petitioners
turn to their co-accused Pamintuan, whose picture depicted in the defense evidence is certainly an ugly
one: petitioners affidavits as well as Yapyucos testimony are replete with suggestions that it was Pamintuan
alone who harbored the motive to ambush the suspects as it was he who their (petitioners) minds that which
they later on conceded to be a mistaken belief as to the identity of the suspects. Cinco, for one, stated in
court that Pamintuan had once reported to him that Flores, a relative of his (Pamintuan), was frequently
meeting with NPA members and that the San Miguel Corporation plant where the victims were employed
was being penetrated by NPA members. He also affirmed Yapyucos claim that there had been a number
of ambuscades launched against members of law enforcement in Quebiawan and in the neighboring areas
supposedly by NPA members at around the time of the incident. But as the Sandiganbayan pointed out, it
is unfortunate that Pamintuan had died during the pendency of these cases even before his opportunity to
testify in court emerged.